Short answer. Yes. Section 27 provides that any elective local or national official who benefits from the proceeds of drug trafficking, or who receives financial or material contributions or donations from convicted traffickers, is removed from office and perpetually disqualified from holding any government position. It is a permanent bar, not merely a suspension.
What the law says
Any elective local or national official found to have benefited from the proceeds of the trafficking of dangerous drugs as prescribed in this Act, or have received any financial or material contributions or donations from natural or juridical persons found guilty of trafficking dangerous drugs as prescribed in this Act, shall be removed from office and perpetually disqualified
RA 9165, Section 27 — Officials Mishandling Seized Drugs. Read the full provision →
What triggers removal
The section reaches any elective local or national official found to have benefited from the proceeds of the trafficking of dangerous drugs, or found to have received any financial or material contributions or donations from persons convicted of trafficking. Two distinct triggers sit there. One is drawing benefit from trafficking proceeds. The other is taking contributions or donations — the kind that often flow into a campaign or an office — from those found guilty of the trade. Either is enough. The provision applies across the board, to local officials and national ones alike, without regard to rank.
The consequence is permanent
The result is not a temporary sanction. The official is removed from office and perpetually disqualified from holding any elective or appointive position in government, including in its divisions, subdivisions and instrumentalities and in government-owned or controlled corporations. So the person cannot simply wait out a term and run again, nor be appointed to some other post. This is a far heavier civil-political consequence than the suspensions or fines that ordinary administrative cases produce, and it stands separately from any prison sentence attached to a criminal charge.
Where this sits in Section 27
This removal-and-disqualification rule is the section's second limb. The first punishes public officers who mishandle or fail to account for seized drugs. That first limb was enacted with a penalty running up to death, but Republic Act No. 9346 (2006) abolished the death penalty, so it can no longer be imposed and life imprisonment applies in its place. The consequence in this question is different in kind: removal from office and perpetual disqualification are political disabilities that operate on the official's capacity to hold public position, not a term of imprisonment, and they were not affected by that change.
What must be proven, and next steps
The trigger is a finding that the official benefited from proceeds, or took contributions or donations from persons found guilty of trafficking — so a trafficker's conviction is part of the factual picture, and the link between that person's proceeds and the official has to be established. This is not a consequence that follows from association or rumour. An official facing such an allegation should have the specific charge and the evidence of benefit reviewed with counsel, because everything turns on proof of the connection the section describes rather than on the appearance of one.